Districting Process in the State

¶ … districting process in the state of California. We present and analysis of the practices and factors that have caused the general public and scholars to criticize the 2001 redistricting process. This discussion is carried out in comparison to the 2011 redistricting process. A comparison is made with the need of supporting the full implementation of the 2011 redistricting princess. This is in light of the serious flaws that are dominant in the 2001 redistricting framework.

The redistricting process which refers to the process of drawing U.S. electoral boundaries as a consequence of the changes in population is determined by the outcome of the decennial census (U.S. Census Bureau 1).In the thirty six states, the state legislature is mandated with the responsibility of drafting a redistricting plan and in many cases the plan is subject to state governor approval. In an effort of reducing the role that is played by legislative politics, states such as California engage in a congressional redistricting via an independent or through a bipartisan commission.

The problem statement

A review of extant literature suggests that partisan domination of the existing state legislatures as well as the use of improved technologies in the redesigning of the contiguous districts that end up packing the opponents into fewer districts as lead to the skewing of the district maps to favor one party. One of the most serious crimes that arises due to skewed redistricting is gerrymandering which is a practice carried out in an effort of establishing a political advantage for a given group or party through the manipulation of the geographic boundaries so as to create an partisan as well as incumbent-protected districts. The created district is referred to as a gerrymander. Gerrymandering can be used in an effort of creating desired electoral results for a given political party. It may also be used in either helping or hindering a given demographic like political, linguistic, racial, class or religious group.

In the U.S., the constitution stipulates that a census be carried out each and every ten years in order ensure the reapportion representation in the country's House of representative. The constitution implicitly allows for the drafting of the political districts after each census to the various states. The federal courts have also defined very strict guidelines to be use in the drawing of the various district boundaries within the U.S. territories. A few constraints however, have been placed on these states in order for to guide who should draw as well as approve the various district boundaries. The states have therefore set certain responsibilities to this political task to various officials (MacDonald 20).This is the case in California in which the state legislature drew congressional district boundaries in the year 2002 with the consequence of gerrymandering.

An overview of the Californian redistricting process

After every ten years, the population of people residing in California is determined through a federal census. The Constitution of California requires the state's legislative assembly to redraw the boundaries of the districts which are used to elect representatives in the public service. This process has effects on the legislature of the State, Board of Equalization and the United States House of Representatives. The main purpose of redistricting is to make sure that all districts have fairly equal population. Redistricting involves the process of drawing new boundary lines for districts that have political representation. According to the Act of Voting Rights that was signed into law in 1965 was very instrumental in giving rights to the minority groups in the political arena in the United States of America. This act also increased the proportion of representation for the minority communities and consequently their rights and interests were represented in the Californian state political intrigues. In spite of the Supreme Court of the Unites states of America passing a ruling that a minority group should make up at least 50% of its population of the voting age in a district, this act criminalizes discrimination based in skin color, language or political affiliation while undertaking the process of drawing new district lines. Through the process of redistricting, all new and old districts should have approximately the same population based on the census data. This is to respect for the basic of principles of democracy of one person one vote, (League of Women Voters of California Education Fund 2)

Redistricting in the state of California is done after every 10 years. With the last one done in 2001 the next one is scheduled for this year, 2011. Unlike in 2001 the responsibility of redrawing the district lines was moved from the elective representatives to a 14 member commission that is composed of representatives from Democrats, Republicans and any 4 registered voters from neither of the two parties. The commission should hold public hearings as it endeavors to develop plan for the process of redistricting. In addition the commission needs not less than nine members voting yes three of which should come from each block of its membership such as democrats, republicans and the others. The commissions' approval of any redistricting plan is to be used for the next ten years until the next commission is put in place.

Introduction

Redistricting:

After every 10 years in the United States of America a census is conducted .following the census, boundaries change to reflect the current population of counties, cities and other jurisdictions that have internal governing districts

.Structure of Proposition 11:

14 person redistricting commission; would create a politically balanced commission -- 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, 4 others . The Commissioners would be chosen for their impartiality, Skills, and to reflect our states demographic and geographic diversity, proposition 11 would create a list of prioritized mapping criteria for the commission to follow .This would follow ensure that our constitution, federal and state laws are followed .California's communities; cities and counties must be respected.

Open public process. The commission would hold hearings to receive public input .Prop 11 would end the closed -- door political deals by legislator to draw district that protect themselves.

In comparisons to the redistricting in 2001, it didn't observe the Prop 11 which is meant to protect and serve the interest of the voters and provide an equal opportunity on a fair platform .

Effects Gerrymandering:

Reduces accountability

Gerrymandering reduces electoral competition and can virtually assure incumbents re-election representatives become less accountable to their constituents. More partisanship there is always an experience of strife in state legislature that enacts them and contributes to polarization in the congress because safe districts enable the election of representatives who need not to appeal moderate voters.

The electoral outcomes of redistricting

A review of extant literature reveals that congressional redistricting has a strong link to the decline is the number of competitive seats in the U.S. congress as well as the partisan imbalance of the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Tufle in 1973 was among the very first scholars to suggest that the process of redistricting can be helpful in explaining the increase in the level of incumbency advantage in the U.S. congress. He noted a general decline in the level of competition immediately after the redistribution cycles. He argued that the incumbents would easily influence the process of redistricting in order to save their congressional seats.

The work of other scholars such as Abramowitz in 1993 clearly documented the advantages that democratic candidates gained in 1982 in their elections through the control of the districting process. Redistricting has been shown to affect the level of electoral competitiveness. Other that the partisan advantage attached to the process, redistricting has been shown to affect the level of electoral competitiveness.

A comparison between the 2001 and 2011 redistricting framework in California

A look at the two redistricting framework reveals several similarities. Both frameworks are shown to take place with a lot of partisan interests being vested. It is also a fact that both 2001 and 2011 redistricting frameworks have generated quite a lot of political and scholarly debates in regard to their influences on various policies such as racial and gender representation.

The contrast that exists between the 2001 and 2011 redistricting framework in California

Both redistricting frameworks have been shown to have critical differences. The most notable one is that in the 2001 redistricting process, all the power of implementation and decision was done by the state legislature and the governor. The 2011 redistricting process however is spearheaded by the legislature, governor and a citizen committee/council. The 2001 redistricting process led to various vises such as incumbency protection and gerrymandering (Forgette and Platt 945).The main reason as to why I object the 2001 redistricting process gerrymandering. This malpractice has several demerits.

The reduction in the level of electoral competition as well as voter turnout

A review of literature reveals that the most dominant effect of effect gerrymandering is that it makes the electoral process to be less competitive in almost all the established districts. This is because the electoral margins of their victory continuously become greater leading them to have safe seats. The incentives of engaging a meaningful and thorough campaign is thus reduced. The chances of influencing the results of elections are significantly reduced leading to the decrease in the level of voter turnout. The political campaigns are therefore less likely to devote resources towards the encouragement of voter turnout. The reduction in the level of competition leads to the candidate placing more efforts in the process of securing his or her party nomination for the given district as opposed to gaining of the approval of the electorate. In a state that has been gerrymandered, the contesting candidate is almost assured of an express win if nominated. An example in California is during the 2004 elections when the Californias 3rd congressional district was declared vacant subsequent to the running for the higher office by the Republican Congressman Doug Ose. The remaining three stronger republican congressional candidates then campaigned vigorously against each other for the remaining nomination in California's primary elections.

Several districts remained uncontested with no other Republican nominee presenting attempting even the slightest campaign efforts.

The increase of the level of incumbent advantages as well as cost of campaign

The effects of gerrymandering for the various incumbents is very advantageous since they are more likely to gain reelection under the favorable condition of gerrymandering. As an example, in the year 2002, the work of the scientists Thomas Man and Norman Orstein, only 4 challengers managed to defeat their incumbents in the U.S. congress, a record low in the history of modern America according to "Iowa's Redistricting Process: An Example of the Right Way to Draw Legislative Districts"

Incumbents are therefore moire likely to be individuals from the majority party who are orchestrating the vice of gerrymandering. This is a clear demonstration that gerrymandering can indeed have a deleterious effect on the existing principles of democratic accountability. This therefore leads to the feeling of offering fewer incentives for the incumbents for the uncompetitive seats. Gerrymandering has also been shown to have a great impact on the overall cost of campaigns. This is because should a district be too much stressed-out, then the candidates are forced to pay more to cover the cost of transportation as well as other expenses. The incumbent therefore gets an advantage.

It has been very difficult to outline effects of redistricting on states or other political regions, since the electoral outcomes solely depend upon the strategy and intentions of the drawers and constrains they face, either demographic or of any other nature.

A plan for redistricting can either be partisan or bipartisan. The former favors the majority and the latter neither the majority nor the minority. A plan therefore should preserve the minorities while having no major political impacts. And because the majority of parties are allowed to draw the lines for their respective houses, it diminishes the integrity of the electoral outcomes.

But that may not be the case since partisan redistricting maximizes the majority of seats by minimizing the electoral efficiency to the most permissible demographic possibility. This is made possible due to the inverse correlation between the level of partisan strength and reappointment gain for majority of the incumbents. Reforms are very necessary to overhaul the current system since it had been found out that lawmakers rig the system for their own favor. This can be augmented by the way the district legislative lines are drawn. The argument is that elected leaders choose their own constituencies instead of vice versa thereby severely limiting the legislative powers voters wield.